Wikisource:Scriptorium

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Scriptorium
The Scriptorium is Wikisource's community discussion page. Feel free to ask questions or leave comments. You may join any current discussion or start a new one; please see Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help. Project members can often be found in the #wikisource IRC channel webclient. For discussion related to the entire project (not just the English chapter), please discuss at the multilingual Wikisource. There are currently 285 active users here.

Contents

Announcements[edit]

Added gadget to sort Special: pages output[edit]

Within the development section of Preferences I have added a gadget that allows for the manipulation of the output of Special: pages. The script is written by User:PerfektesChaos and you can read more about its use and customisation. When activated if in monobook skin you get tabs at the top, if using vector skin then you have options under "More". Thanks to PerfektesChaos for pointing me to the gadget, and his development of the gadget. There for a trial, and if we have sufficient users we will retain it. Noting that users can have it through their common/global scripts if they prefer. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposals[edit]

Bot approval requests[edit]

Repairs (and moves)[edit]

Designated for requests related to the repair of works (and scans of works) presented on Wikisource

On the Coromandel Coast[edit]

There appears to be two pages missing in the book Index:On the Coromandel Coast.djvu between 11 and 12. i.e. The Table of Contents second page and the first page of the main contents. Can we solve the problem or stop working on the book.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Rajasekhar1961: I have found those two versions with those two pages :
Assassas77 (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much Assassas77. The first reference is exactly similar. But I do not know how to add the missing two pages to the index pages already uploaded in English wikisource. Can you help me. I am continuing the proofreading of this important book about the Coromandel coast. Thank you once again.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I think it is actually impossible to add pages to an existing uploaded file. However, I'd rather ask someone more experienced about that. The administrators can probably do something about it I guess. Assassas77 (talk) 05:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
There is no possibility to amend any uploaded file; we have never done that. What is possible is to download, amend, and then upload to overwrite an existing file. If we have a more complete file, if it is the same edition, then upload that, and we will simply move the pages from one version to another. If it is a different edition, then we cannot. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Rajasekhar1961: Yes check.svg Done . Now the the pages will need to be moved by increment order of 2 from p.12 to p.372. This can be done with this script, but Linux O.S. is required, which I don't have. Hrishikes (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Put a specific and informative request on WS:BR and when someone has some time one of us will use the available bots. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Rajasekhar1961: Page-move done, found a way to do it in Windows. The index is ok now, please re-do the pagelist. Hrishikes (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you everybody for solving the problem; without losing the work already done. I have corrected index pagelist.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 04:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Strip google notices[edit]

Could someone remove the google notices for the following works?;

Thank you GhostOrchid35 (talk) 09:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm curious, when removing the notice page (especially in a case like this, where transcription has already been started), is it preferable to replace the notice page with a blank page, so that pagination doesn't get messed up? -Pete (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
It's certainly easier; if you remove the page completely then you need to move all the existing pages and ensure the redirects get deleted. Because of this, I would replace with a blank page. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
The Google page often shifts the pagination. In practical terms, it usually works either way, but having a blank page ahead of the front cover is weird, and having even and odd pages flopped in the DjVu can makes for some unfortunate consequences when trying to read that file like a book. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
As we have existing files, and we only wanted to build the one tool, it was determined to simply replace the problematic page with a blank page; that means no other manipulation. We don't start with a clean slate. <shrug> @Mpaa: where are we with having wikisource-bot or another bot doing those replacements? — billinghurst sDrewth 06:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Far away unfortunately. RL took over for a while. Hope to have some time soon.— Mpaa (talk) 09:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
@GhostOrchid35: Yes check.svg DoneHrishikes (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Comic History of England[edit]

Can someone move Comic History of England (and subpages) to Bill Nye's Comic History of England (as per the titlepage) as there's also a book with the same title by Gilbert Abbott à Beckett. -Einstein95 (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Beeswaxcandle: Your work, care to manage? — billinghurst sDrewth 23:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done and dab created. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Other discussions[edit]

Page images errors - NOT FIXED![edit]

Looks like the latest update is causing more problems loading page images in the edit window. A hard purge seems to fix the problem, but it must be done every time on every page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

yeah - wow, hard to do initial proofread at this rate, at least the coloured buttons are pretty… Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Lovely buttons indeed! But the absence of the image is not so lovely. Quite often the image is shown as a small stripe in the upper left corner of the image-window. I found that clicking on the page number in the Index often brings the image back. Sometimes two times clicking is necessary. --Dick Bos (talk) 11:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Here’s a temporary fix one can add to their individual css page:

.prp-page-image { overflow: visible !important; }
.prp-page-image > img { min-width: 80% !important; height: auto !important; width: auto !important; }

It’s ugly but it works for the moment. χchi (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

i can always go to tasks that do not require an image, but it does strike at the purpose of this site. is it related to the old problem with index page not showing colour status of pages? that needed a purge to refresh "null edit" as well. Slowking4SvG's revenge 14:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@User:Χ, Thanks, but the fix does not really work. It shows the image far too large. --Dick Bos (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes I’m aware. You can play around with the min-width of the image to fit your screen, but in the end it’s not really meant to fix the actual bug, just a quick and dirty workaround to be able to see the image. χchi (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment quick look shows that it is setting an image height of 15px, and looks to be poking into the toolbar. If you view the image and return, then it resets the page fine. So guessing that it is a page rendering order issue, and nothing to do with the image itself. [That is all I currently have time to do. ]— billinghurst sDrewth 23:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
    It is definitely a rendering issue, as if I go back and then forward (rock and roll) from the page, as the image is available it renders to size just fine when I revisit. Purging will not necessarily fix the issue as it will try to do everything from scratch, and that then faces same rendering timing issues. Seems that it is a javascript issue where we need to get the script to better dynamically deliver the page, and not get caught in the toolbar image rendering. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

We're about a week later now, and this nasty problem still exists. Is anyone looking after it? That would be great. It's far beyond my technical knowledge to do anything, so please.... Greetings, --Dick Bos (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be fixed by the latest update, I may have needed to undo the temp fix in order to see that it was working Flannel (talk)

The (changed) title of this paragraph suggests that the problem is fixed. It is not! We are one and a half month further in time, and the problem, caused by some update of the software or so, is still there, and still causes extra work (I have to move from the page that does not show an image; and the next time the image is there), and most of all: it makes te working of Wikisource absolutely unclear for new users. --Dick Bos (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dick Bos: It has been noted on the Phab ticket by several WS communities that it is still unresolved. The fix failed, or it was due to another component. The simple adjustment is to flick back and forward on the browser page (do not push a reload). The first time in the time taken to get the right thumbnail and the page loads before the image is ready. When flick back and forth, the image is already generated and available and loads fine. A question for you, which skin and which toolbar are you using? — billinghurst sDrewth 13:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Thanks for your answer. Let's hope that it can be fixed. About the skin and the toolbar: I don't know. Where can I see that? --Dick Bos (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
@Dick Bos: Both in your preferences, for your skin Appearance and for your toolbar Editing. I am guessing that you will have Vector, and the Advanced Enhanced toolbar checked on the respective tabs. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The issue is certainly not fixed for me. I'm using the Vector skin and the advanced toolbar. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I don't see a checkbox for "advanced toolbar" under the "editing tab." I'm using Vector, and this problem has persisted for me for some time, across several browsers. Mostly (and maybe entirely) under the most recent Ubuntu Mate (upgraded from 17.10 to 18.04 a couple weeks ago, with no impact on this issue.) I thought I had the problem under Windows as well, but I can't be sure without testing (happy to do so if it's helpful).
I tried the CSS fix above, but it just introduced a new problem -- now the preview is too big and the white margins crash into the text in the editing window. (Can provide screenshots if helpful.) -Pete (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC) (p.s. I notice from the discussion above that the CSS foibles are already known, and something I can work around with some tweaking.) -Pete (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
All fixes and commentary should be added to the phabricator ticket. Noise there is far more productive than noise here.
Smacking my forehead...I looked and looked, and somehow missed "enhanced." However, perhaps useful info...I did not have it enable. (And yes, I'll add info to the phab ticket -- good point.) -Pete (talk) 04:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: - your guess was correct. I have a vector skin and I have the enhanced editing toolbar enabled. @Peteforsyth: - I made a remark in the phabricator thing (for me, after about fifteen years, a complete new corner of the Wikimedia-world! Never to old to learn new things). Let's hope it will bring us a solution. --Dick Bos (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

New Proofread buttons icons[edit]

Hi everybody! When you activate the option "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" of your preferences, then in edit mode of pages, some proofread icons are different than those stated at Help:Page scans (that is, the "old" buttons Button category plus.png, Text columns.png and so on). I've been searching on Commons, Phabricator and Gerrit which are the files for those icons but I've been unsuccessful. I want to update the help page in some Wikisources, and link the new icons, so I can tell to newbies which buttons they have to click on. But the help page doesn't show the new buttons. Does anybody know which are the files? Also, Wikisource page status buttons.png now is different (whatever the preferences you have activated). Any help will be welcome! Thanks! -Aleator (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and also the files shown at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing, that is, MediaWiki:Proofreadpage-preferences-showheaders-label and MediaWiki:Proofreadpage-preferences-horizontal-layout-label perhaps becomes confusing to some users.-Aleator (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
You may need to ask at Meta. As far as I know, the English Wikisource wasn't consulted on these changes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
At least hovering over icons gives some direction. Page status icons do resemble easter eggs now. Is it permissible to take screenshots of icons and upload to Commons? The aforementioned page status buttons image was uploaded that way by User:Dominic. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
yes, please take a snip, with those fancy tl;dr templates. it will be nice for demonstrating that we noticed the change, even if unconsulted. Slowking4SvG's revenge
Tomorrow, if there are no objections. What are tl & dr? Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
sorry for the editorial comment, the template [1] is so "too long and did not read" that i thought it appropriate when reusing WMF content. why we would need a special template, i do not know, but since it is there…. Slowking4SvG's revenge 11:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm partly to blame, I think, or at least I knew about what was going on (a bit). I started working on the OOUI version of the radio buttons (just out of interest really, and because "everything" is supposed to be converted to OOUI eventually), but never finished it, and recently Esanders submitted a patch to do the same, and it was accepted. There's some more discussion about this at phab:T164753. Sam Wilson 04:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Aleator: Have updated/added buttons to Commons and updated Help:Page scans page only:

Wikisource page status buttons.png
Wikisource previous page button.png previous page
Wikisource next page button.png next page
Wikisource navigate to index button.png the Index for the page
Wikisource show hide header footer button.png show/hide the interface for editing the header and footer
Wikisource vertical horizontal layout button.png vertical/horizontal layout
Wikisource zoom out button.png zoom out on scan
Wikisource zoom in button.png zoom in on scan
Wikisource reset zoom original size button.png reset zoom

Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all :) -Aleator (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Can someone perhaps update this image (upload a new version of the file at Commons, also updating file info as necessary) to reflect the new buttons? Pretty much any unproofread page (with discretion) in edit mode should do. Preferably with settings a new editor would encounter... My background has color to make it easier on my eyes, and I also have a customized edit bar... or I would update myself. Thanks if you can. The image is used on about 3 WS pages. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

RE: my post above: If no one else is able to update as requested, I can create another account myself for just such a purpose. Unless there is an objection to my doing so. That way, when any new changes occur, I can make updates to reflect how a new editor would view pages/images. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Update: I was able to log in to my old (original) user account to take screenshots, and have updated the images on the following help pages:

If anyone finds more images in need up updating, please let me know. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Schindlerjuden[edit]

The article at w:Schindlerjuden currently contains a list of everyone on "Schindler's List" of Jews saved during World War II. This seems to be more appropriate content for Wikisource than for Wikipedia. I'm not sure how/where such a list would be added here, nor even whether it would be on this site or a German-language Wikisource. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

WS:WWI is your guide here, and we wouldn't collect a compiled list solely due to the fact that it is a compiled list. We reproduce historical documents or published works. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
The compiled list on enwiki is apparently based on two specific historical documents from 1945 currently located at Yad Vashem; I'm unsure if reproductions of the originals are available online. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
more appropriate for wikidata. talked about this at holocaust museum, they do not have a copy of the original document to transcribe, rather they have compiled lists online https://www.ushmm.org/online/hsv/source_view.php?SourceId=20610 --Slowking4SvG's revenge 02:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
If you could find a copy of the original list to reproduce, it would be in scope at German Wikisource. I could only find about half the pages scanned however. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Jessewaugh (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Pulchrism: Championing Beauty as the Purpose of Art[edit]

Over at Wikipedia the page for the author of this self-published text has been deleted three times:

It also carries a fairly clear copyright notice: "© Jesse Waugh, © Carpophage Press, All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review."104.163.158.37 03:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Permission was granted via OTRS (ticket #2016082510004762), see File:Pulchrism - Championing Beauty as the Purpose of Art.pdf. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Additionally, from https://www.jessewaugh.com/catalogues/:

PULCHRISM: Championing Beauty as The Purpose of Art is licensed as Creative Commons category CC-BY. See it here on Wikisource.

with the last sentence being a link to the Wikisource page in question. CC-BY is the license used by Wikisource, so I don't see an issue here from a copyright perspective. Whether it should be removed due to the possibility of it being self-published is another question. -Einstein95 (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
WS:PD is the place to address this if someone wishes to pursue. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

104.163.158.37, why are you trying to remove all references to this person across Wikimedia projects? —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Conversation doesn't belong here. If the user wishes to pursue it, then they can explain it at that conversation at the identified place. Please don't prolong the conversation here. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
i find the conversation just fine here. we have anonymous editors here inserting english drama across all wikis. the amount of vindictiveness you will tolerate is a policy question, not confined to any specific case. and editors here should be aware there are anonymous sea-lions seeking to induce you to act on their behalf. Slowking4SvG's revenge 17:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
To answer Justin above (I'm the same IP, router reset), I asked about this item as Waugh is just engaging in personal promotion. On Wikipedia it was unjustified, and the pages got deleted. There is also major sockpuppeting, at the AfDs and even now, when three IPs were just blocked while discussing pulchrism at wiktionary. So there is major promotionalism going on with "Waugh products". The Wikisource Pulchrism text is a self-published item that has no notability or purpose outside of the author's vanity, so I think it's reasonable to ask why it is here. Also, Justin, you're a very respectable editor so I do not get why you uploaded them in the first place, along well as the 13 artist images by Waugh at Commons. Waugh and his work has no notability or pubic following-- what is the point of promoting it here? I guess my answer to your quesiton is that I respect the wiki projects, and wonder why this crap is here?104.163.145.232 01:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Deletion discussion opened.104.163.145.232 02:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
the vindictiveness across multiple platforms and many years is immoral. you seem to have a lot of knowledge of wikicode and forums; care to declare your user name? Slowking4SvG's revenge 10:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
You have that backwards. Making an effort to delete non-notable, vanity, self-published and promotional material from wiki projects is constructive work that helps to maintain overall project quality. The "immoral" act here, if you must have one, is uploading such material across wiki projects simply to gratify one's ego, and then sockupppeting and meatpuppeting (not here on wikisource (yet)) during deletion discussions to keep the ineligible material here. (Router reset, I'm 104.163.145.232, the the nominating IP.) 198.58.173.226 03:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
mandiberg you’re the one sock puppeting with anonymous accounts and everybody knows it. You’ve also summoned your coven of feminazis to take me down because of my gender and race (white male - the last bastion of the dreaded “patriarchy”), and canvassed numerous individuals to contribute to your deletionist rampage to unperson me from Wikimedia. You’ve sure got it in for me - I wonder why? This is so obviously politically motivated. But it’s also a personal vendetta because something about my art and message - which you universally slate - irks you. But you apparently lack the introspective capacity to figure out why. In your ignorance you convince yourself my art is kitsch, but something bugs you about it. What is that something mandiberg? You’re nothing but a fascist totalitarian - the very monster you claim to be fighting. You’ve also ousted real, actual, authentic feminists from Wikipedia in your bizarre (or not so bizarre, as you behave like an intelligence operative) quest to establish yourself as the leftist tzar of feminism on Wikimedia. No doubt you will get this response struck out as a personal attack, but I won’t be the only one to see the irony in this, as you have orchestrated what obviously amounts to a monumental personal attack on me with your sickeningly hateful erasure of me across all Wikimedia. You may think you have power over Wikimedia deletion debates because of your chutzpah, but your conflict of interest - as an “artist” (taken with a grain of salt) deleting information about other artists who don’t fit your gender and racial prerequisites - will eventually cause others more powerful than you to take note of your cyberterrorist tactics. Jessewaugh (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm just applying Wikimedia policies. Sorry if that interferes with your career. Have a nice day.198.58.173.226 09:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
PS: I'm not Michael Mandiberg, although I do respect what he does. 198.58.173.226 09:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Mob witch hunts are Wikimedia policy? Everyone knows you're mandiberg. Burning books is not art - it's destruction. Jessewaugh (talk) 11:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I am sorry that Wikimedia is not working out as a promotional vehicle for your personal ideas. However, you should not be attacking real people by the their names as you do above. There's really no point.198.58.173.226 11:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
At least I have the balls to use my real name. You're the one trying to monopolize Wikimedia as a vehicle for your personal ideas -- you literally print it up into a set of volumes (like a retrograde Britannica) in a sorry attempt to possess it as your own "art". Whatever your motives may be, the result of your work actually furthers the demise of Wikipedia. You're so hellbent on demonstrating your supposed Wiki-eliteness that you can't see that your actions are counterproductive. Either that or you have nefarious political intentions. How do you not see your own vindictive megalomania? I was just happy to have a Wikipedia article about me until you laid your hideous psychopathic eyes on it and set out to destroy it. You're constantly accusing me of self-promotion, mandiberg - but you don't practice what you preach - as you engage in much more self-promotion than I do. Maybe instead of trying to hijack Wikipedia as some sort of fifth-rate performance art piece, you might just do something constructive -- like CREATING something of value maybe?? -- instead of burning books (literally for your art, and figuratively with your deletionism), and deleting artists who actually *try* to create value - like me. That's why I advocate Beauty in art, and try to create beautiful art -- because I want to be positive and helpful and creative - not a destroyer like you. I don't claim to succeed at doing so - that would make me guilty of what you accused me: egotism. My practice is not an attempt at some sort of egotistical self-aggrandizement as you suggest - I try to create beautiful art simply because I want to make the world a better place, and who will promote it if I don't? - evidently not you. If you're as idealist as you make yourself out to be, then perhaps you might put a little faith in me and stop doing everything you can in order to destroy my credibility. You say in your videos that by editing Wikipedia you're writing history. We'll see on which side of history you fall - on the side of the creators or on the side of the destroyers. Jessewaugh (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Shaming language doesn’t work any more - but you wouldn’t know that considering the company you keep. Jessewaugh (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
As an administrator, this thread needs to die. Now. Any relevant discussion on the book can go to Wikisource:Proposed deletions, and personal attacks and political arguments need to cease; this is not the website for them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Please take your Wikipedia approach back there. At enWS whilst we may disagree about subjects and have the occasional blow-up, we do try to be respectful. Present your case objectively, then shut up. Getting personal is not the way. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

New edit interface[edit]

A few days ago the interface for (source) edits was updated, apparently. Some signs in the toolbar are changed. But also the little grey lines around the edit sections (header, page body, and footer) have disappeared, which is really nasty. When loading the page the lines can be seen in a very short flash. But after that they disappear, and I can't get them back. Am I the only editor around here who does not like this? --Dick Bos (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

My lines/boundaries are obscured between header/page body/footer now as well. It does throw me off some. Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
It makes it nearly impossible to tell which section of the page is being edited. There have been several editing interface problems introduced in recent weeks. Should we compile a list of them, get signatures and present them to Mediawiki, with a statement that these constant changes to wikisource without notification of, testing on, or prior input from the affected project(s) is unacceptable? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree this problem is annoying—I'm also having it—but IMO the OOUIfication of the edit window isn't a problem once you get used to the change, and the fact that Dick Bos sees the lines appearing then disappearing again suggests a regression rather than a deliberate choice. I'll see about creating a Phab ticket. BethNaught (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Keeping us informed and even involving the WS community in the process before changes are made is also desired so that we can be prepared to make the necessary changes with images/information on our help pages. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
These (little) changes are indeed really nasty in the normal process of editing. Good ideas of @EncycloPetey and @Londonjackbooks! And thanks to @BethNaught for making a "Phab ticket" for this. So first of all: make a list of these little problems, somewhere, and then present this list to Wikimedia, and next keep our list updated with information about what is (not) going on ..... I will be happy to help, but I'm a typical (non-English) "end-user", so don't expect too much from me, when it concerns these "technical" things. --Dick Bos (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
this is a perpetual problem, where the coders do not do UX, are wikipedia focused, and underestimate just how disruptive "cosmetic" changes are. Slowking4SvG's revenge 13:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Are people only seeing this difference in the Page: ns? [Noting that I am not even sure of the issue that you describe, so a bit unable to assist]. If it is, then it could be a Proofread Page issue, and related to the fix that Tpt did for the page order load. Presuming that Tpt's fix will come out next week. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    And I see that Tpt has added a comment to that effect since I last checked. So, it is nothing related to WP developers, it is only our local developers. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
You're right. Sorry. I forgot to mention that. The problem here described is in the Page namespace, indeed. --Dick Bos (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
and the new interface does not extend down the "page body" field, requiring more scrolling up and down to proofread. a refresh of the "scroll within scroll" would be nice. Slowking4SvG's revenge 12:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Small-size scan when creating a new page[edit]

Hi everyone,

I have a problem when I'm creating a new page in the Page: namespace. The scan is displayed as a really small picture. When I refresh the page, the scan goes back to normal size. Any clues about how I can correct that ?

[2]

Assassas77 (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Assassas77: ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑ #Page images errorsbillinghurst sDrewth 15:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-16[edit]

15:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Page: ns fixes above[edit]

The display fixes noted above are noted to be deployed with the .30 rollout. This is scheduled for about 2018-04-18 circa 2000, and you should see its rollout noted at toollabs:sal/production search for "1.31.0-wmf.30" and it will also display here in Special:Versionbillinghurst sDrewth 14:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

IRS about Wikisource[edit]

Hello. The Russian WP-article about Wikisource has been nominated for deletion. Can someone please suggest some independent reliable sources (in English) about WS? there's nothing in Russian… Thanks in advance. Ratte (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ratte: You might try visiting the English Wikipedia Wikisource article for sources? Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for quick reply. As I can see, there's no any independent reliable sources, mainly Wikimedia projects. [8] — there's no «significant coverage». Ratte (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ratte: Perhaps one I came across: 1) Washington Post article briefly mentioning Wikisource: "National Archives hires first 'Wikipedian'" by Lisa Rein (June 2, 2011). States, "Another project is related to Wikisource. This is a sister project to Wikipedia. It deals with primary source material. They transcribe pages and scans of documents." I'll keep looking. References are not my area of expertise :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
2) Mention in a book: No specimen left behind: mass digitization of natural history collections by Vincent Smith (2012) (p. 239 &c.)
3) Don't know if this one counts: Wikisource and the Scholarly Book Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
On a related note: This book Doug & Wahwee (2012) on books.google cites Wikisource for the Treaty of Versailles. This is an example of the project being cited (used), rather than a mention. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: Thank you very much!! Ratte (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ratte: Also note EncycloPetey's response above. For some reason, their comment was removed with a bot edit to the page, and I have placed it back. Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
here is some BBC about anne frank [9], and "how wiki works" book ref [10], wikimedia blog has coverage of odia wikisource [11] [12] (i leave the other blog post by our esteemed colleague to the student). cheers Slowking4SvG's revenge 20:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Dracula, Frankenstein.. Next?[edit]

Which of the Horror genre canon do we not have as scan backed versions?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

We still don't have a scan-backed copy of Carmilla by Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Added Index:In a Glass Darkly - v3.djvu (Carmilla starts on DJVU p.57. -Einstein95 (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Might be worth adding the other volumes as well. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Done: 1, 2. -Einstein95 (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Also, no scan-backed copy of The Invisible Man by H. G. Wells. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Index:The Invisible Man - A Grotesque Romance.djvu Just got started on this. -Einstein95 (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Finished. -Einstein95 (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Don't forget that Portal:Horror is a good place to find works that might need scans, and to list newly added works! —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-17[edit]

18:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

On pagination[edit]

https://theoutline.com/post/4257/what-of-the-lowly-page-numberJustin (koavf)TCM 20:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

great article. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
i see the last update changed the page number layout, and we now have "page links within text". Slowking4SvG's revenge 21:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Firstly, check your page "display options" in the sidebar to ensure that you have the right options in place.

I was fiddling with page numbering yesterday (for about half an hour) to see if there was a simple fix for the Translation: ns issue; so it is possible that had an impact, though it shouldn't — purge cache and recheck. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

"People don't use Wikisource"[edit]

I inquired at WP about links to WS from WP pages. They are now located in the left navigation panel, which does not show up on mobile devices. Old "external links" to WS are considered "redundant" and often removed in deference to the link in the navigation pane. I used Wikisource's usage of placing sister site links near the header—fully visible in mobile mode, and was met with "People don't use Wikisource" as a rationale for perhaps not doing similarly at WP. I continued the discussion at another Talk page. Please correct me if my interpretation of their statement is wrong. Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia, and they should be using their valuable infrastructure to focus on the encyclopaedic content, which is how I read that comment. If you don't want to use an external link, then you can utilise {{wikisource author}} which will pick up the wikidata link without the need for additional parameters. If people are taking out Wikisource as an external link, then you can just be put back in again, and simply comment about required for availability in mobile. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
welcome to the adversive edit warring at wikipedia. what he means is "i don’t use Wikisource, and since i am not an admin there. i will revert links there just like wikidata." rosiestep however, will work to write articles based on wikisource, so find the competent people to collaborate with. Slowking4SvG's revenge 21:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
That is not a correct assessment of the events. My fault for not being clear. You can follow Talk page links for complete a account. I think concerns have been addressed, although there is opportunity for further discussion at relevant WP/WM talk &c. pages. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
i’m glad to see him walk back his aggressive comment. apparently, he is unaware of the extensive use Rosiestep has made of WS, particularly w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/Woman of the Century. the fact that mobile, can’t link gracefully, makes it more important to link as a reference. lots of citation cleanup to do. Slowking4SvG's revenge 22:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Nah, not aggressive. Like I responded, more "unhelpful" than aggressive. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
@Slowking4: I haven't been following the conversation over there, though the comment "...mobile, can’t link gracefully..." interests me, and not one that I have followed/noticed. Is there a good summary discussion that is informative? One of the things that I have been wondering is about seeing how linking through Wikidata may be useful for us in terms of better interwikis. A large job I know, though one that I consider of value. I know that I did lots of work for authors to get {{wikisource author}} more functional—though I have no revisited that for a while. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
yeah, do not know of any central discussion. maybe https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:MobileFrontend ? the mobile team made some design choices, like losing the left menu. (and they collapse references) so hard to find wikidata link, or what links here. the commons and wikisource external link boxes work, but the custom nav boxes do not. we do not have a "results from sister projects" (search result on right hand side on desktop) although they do have a "read more" added at the bottom of mobile. -- it means a new round of how to link to wikisource in a discoverable way from mobile, which is the growth reader area. maybe we need a channel to discuss with mobile team. when i say "not graceful" i mean that links in mobile do not go to a WS app, but to browser, and we have to custom link to each article, it does not find a link via wikidata. it’s a lot of hand curation. Slowking4SvG's revenge

MediaWiki:Citethispage-content[edit]

Hi there is a conversation started at MediaWiki talk:Citethispage-content about the text for citation link. It is an area where we are not the best and have a bit of set and forget. All welcome to join the conversation. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Books on books[edit]

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/books-about-libraries-historyJustin (koavf)TCM 18:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-18[edit]

16:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Index:The History of the Church & Manor of Wigan part 2[edit]

Hi,

I'd like to attempt to complete the outstanding sequence of table pages in Index:The History of the Church & Manor of Wigan part 2.djvu

I have attempted the first three pages of the table starting at page 8 (188) and I would now like to be able to see how they are rolling into each other over the page breaks and check for issues, however I am not sure how to make them visible as a whole. I think part 2 may need to be transculded to allow this view?

Would someone have time to take a look and make the changes required?

I'd also appreciate if anyone could check out my initial attempt at creating the table and offer any improvements?

I'm trying to learn tables from what info I can find in the help pages, but I'm not sure if I've grasped the concepts fully.

Thanks, Sp1nd01 (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Sp1nd01: If you transclude pages such as Page:The History of the Church & Manor of Wigan part 2.djvu/8 and Page:The History of the Church & Manor of Wigan part 2.djvu/9 into another page, you can see how they look together. So you could start (e.g.) User:Sp1nd01/Sandbox and input (e.g.) <pages index="The History of the Church & Manor of Wigan part 2.djvu" from=8 to=XX/>, replacing "XX" with the final page you wish to transclude. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Justin, I've created the Sandbox Page as suggested and can now see the table layout.
Now the fun starts in trying to get them to all line up. Sp1nd01 (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Centralised hacking attempts[edit]

A centralised hacking attempt, targeting wiki user accounts is going on, WMF is also aware, see here. Many of my colleagues in Indic projects, including myself, have been targeted. Same may be the experience with many users here. Targeted users will receive failed log-in attempt alert from English Wikipedia (mainly) and also email. Better to secure your accounts by strengthening the password and also going for 2-Factor-Authentication (2FA). Admins (in at least one wiki site) can enable 2FA for themselves. Non-admins can request at m:Steward requests/Global permissions. Hrishikes (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Me as well, earlier this morning. Several attempts. I left a message at my WP user page for 'whomever'. Wondered if it affected anyone else as well. Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Likewise, but I had only one attempt this morning. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Me too: around 21:00 UTC on 3 May (or 00:00 on 4 May if of Moscow Time) I also got message from English Wikipedia about one failed attempt to log in to my account. So it seems to be that it was a true mass attack to indiscriminately random users, if even I, who doesn't belong to English-speaking world, also was attempted to be attacked in English Wikipedia. --Nigmont (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks like Wikipedia underwent another mass attack. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Copyright question[edit]

Hi, I found the text for a novel published in 1863. The author died more than 100 years ago, but the edition of the book I found was published way later. The prologue is obviously copyrighted, because it was written for the new edition. However, the text of the novel itself is in the public domain. Can this edition be used as a source (only for the text of the novel, of course)? As I said, the novel was originally published in 1863 and the author died in 1905. --Freddy eduardo (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Have you looked on the Internet Archive for a scan of an earlier edition? Or the Hathi Trust? Wikisource prefers to have copies of works backed by a scan. I would offer to help, but I do not know the title or author, as you did not provide the details. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Here is the edition I found: [24] (hosted at archive.org). As you can see, that edition is from 1974, so the prologue is copyrighted. I searched for a scan of the original 1863 edition but I couldn't find it anywhere (the novel is in Spanish, I plan to upload it to the Spanish Wikisource, but there are not many active users nowadays over there so that's why I'm asking here). Can I upload the text of the novel and link to that edition as a source? Thanks for the help--Freddy eduardo (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@Freddy eduardo:, I don't think there would be a problem with Wikisource policy in transcribing the text as you describe (leaving out the prologue). But the potential problem would be in the upload of the PDF file. You may wish to bring this up at commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. One possibility would be to create a new PDF file leaving out the copyrighted pages, but you might need specialized PDF software to do that. Hope this helps. -Pete (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
HathiTrusts works by that author are all recent and not viewable. You can take this edited version; I don't read Spanish, so I may have overcut or undercut. (That's a temporary link, so copy it if it's useful.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
did not find first edition on worldcat, so finding it to scan it would be hard. maybe a query at national library. Slowking4SvG's revenge 23:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

AdvancedSearch[edit]

Birgit Müller (WMDE) 14:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Advanced search form now available through beta preferences. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-19[edit]

16:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

High priority
    Table tag that should be deleted (7 errors)
    Misnested tag with different rendering in HTML5 and HTML4 (16,270 errors)
    Miscellaneous Tidy replacement issues (0 errors)
    Multiline table in list (37 errors)
    Multiple unclosed formatting tags (4 errors)
    Paragraph wrapping bug workaround (1 error)
    Self-closed tags (2 errors)
    Tidy bug affecting font tags wrapping links (2,221 errors)
    Tidy whitespace bug (1 error)
    Unclosed quote in heading (0 errors)
Medium priority
    Bogus file options (10 errors)
    Fostered content (4,033 errors)
    Misnested tags (196,818 errors)
    Multi colon escape (0 errors)
Low priority
    Missing end tag (229,180 errors)
    Obsolete HTML tags (193,926 errors)
    Stripped tags (102,542 errors)

Looking at the big one, Misnested tag with different rendering in HTML5 and HTML4, there may be some subtle error in {{header}} causing some of them. Ante-Nicene Fathers has a bunch of them; the one I looked at had unclosed spans due apparently to careless imports by Polbot. I'm almost tempted to argue for blowing away the whole collection, as it's webscraped, apparently somewhat carelessly, and lacks scans. The pages I looked at all had the same history; Polbot creating it in 2008, SDrewthbot making some changes in 2009, and Spangineer's bot changing header2 to header in 2012. In any case, that chunk should not be handled manually.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: This is why I've been gradually uploading the first (British) edition (called Ante-Nicene Christian Library), rather than the later A-NF plagiarised edition. At some time we will want the later edition in a good state, but the poor quality imports make the current version only of use for linking until we've got all 24 volumes of the first edition up. I'm half-way through the fifth volume. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@Beeswaxcandle: I don't understand what you mean by "only of use for linking" - ? I noticed that "span class=c1", which appears at least on title pages, doesn't seem to do what it's supposed to. From looking at the original, I think it's supposed to center the text, but the class probably isn't defined here. A verstige of web scraping? See: Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VI/Title Pages -Pete (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: By "linking" I'm referring to wikilinks from other texts we hold. Until I bring in the other ANCL volumes the ANF is the only copy we hold of Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen and Tertullian. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

(Moved from Template talk:Header)

According to Wikisource:Scriptorium#Tech_News:_2018-19, it's important that we fix high priority lint errors. Looking at Special:LintErrors/html5-misnesting, there are 17,000 of this one high priority lint error, and at least some of them come down to this template. (The example I looked at was not clearly misusing the template.) There's a misnesting of HTML tags involving a span tag that might break stuff when going to HTML 5. I started to try and debug it, but there's a lot of scary code here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

So if I'm reading this right, linter errors seem to be errors in wikitext that could cause rendering problems. @Prosfilaes: what do you think needs to happen? Is there an easy way for less technical folks to pitch in? -Pete (talk) 07:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
And what are the consequences if we don't take care of this? trying to wrap my head around the level of urgency and scope of the problem. -Pete (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
The consequences, according to the post above, is that they're going to change us from Tidy to a different parsing library by the end of July (which is way too little warning if they think it's actually going to break things, IMO), and every one of those errors represents something that could break. I'm guessing a lot of them won't, but most all of them are still theoretical problems.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
They should be fixed. It depends on how less technical you are; if you have some understanding of HTML, it should be possible in some cases to find where tags are improperly nested; this edit, for example, was pretty obvious knowing that a sup tag wasn't properly nested.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I think one of the errors with {{header}} is the use of a span element for the section parameter. In cases where there's a newline in the section, the latter part(s) of the section are given a <p> wrapper. For example, this:
 | section    = Book 1—Classical fables
 Part 2—Babrius
results in this:
<span id="header_section_text">Book 1—Classical fables</span><p><span id="header_section_text">Part 2—Babrius</span></p>
The fix seems to be to either remove the linebreak, or turn the span into a div and make it display:inline (because we follow it with an italicised contributor statement in inline elements). Like this.

Of course, similar issues may exist for other fields of {{header}}, but this is the one that I've seen a few of.

Sam Wilson 09:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I've added a test to Template:Header/testcases#Newlines_in_sections. The above fix might be the wrong way to go: perhaps we want to permit section to contain paragraphs? If we do, the text that follows (from override_contributor and contributor) should be fixed up instead. Sam Wilson 09:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Specific case example is [https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=An_Illustrated_Flora_of_the_Northern_United_States,_Canada_and_the_British_Possessions/Commelinaceae&action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=513184 here. Problems that I see. 1) Too much information being added at every page in the work, that resides at the root page; 2) Incorrect use of fields, not certain why we have author information in the section space; 3) abundant use of <br/> through the section.

Suggested solutions: 1) trim repeating information, and add at top if missing; 2) use author, override_author, and contributor, ... properly; 3) Remove line breaks and make cascading sections flat; noting that this also fits in with our long-held position of keeping our headers smaller and not intruding on the body content.

At this stage I do not wish to modify header to make it a <div> component. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any way around making at least the "notes=" parameter a div. There is too much varied information that has to be placed into that parameter to do it any other way. The single parameter must potentially handle notes about the work, notes about the edition, and notes about format, audio, etc. Tossing all of that together into a single paragraph does the reader no service. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC).

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment We have numbers of issues, and I think that we need to work through them as sets, and look at model solutions. The major problem has been that it simply hasn't mattered as the system has had the robustness to cover for poor coding, and that is about to change as things become more code compliant. Some reflect the development of our templates; some are the ignorance of users between span and div (and I have so been there), and that we don't help that with clear documentation of with our templates; some is poor patrolling with unwillingness or lack of confidence to intervene, again unsupported by the community.

We have numbers of things to change, and it is going to take an all of community approach to fix the basics, and to fix the code that exists, and that we still continue to add to poor coding today. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree, there's masses of stuff to fix. Lots of the errors are located in the template usage, and we can easily (well, time-consumingly) go around and fix those. But I think we should decide whether section should be inline or block-level (maybe it should stay inline, that certainly makes sense in lots of ways as it's just meant to be a name, and then we'd just need to go around and fix the incorrect usages of it). @EncycloPetey: notes is already a div; are you seeing linting errors with it? Sam Wilson 00:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Interjecting with a specific question...I clicked on this one, and I see a number of <br> tags, which I think should be <br />. Is that the problem, or is it something else? Do we need to add the trailing "/" into all break tags? If so, isn't that something a bot could do pretty easily? -Pete (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

And here's another one, that appears just fine -- safe to conclude that the problem is in the template itself? [30] -Pete (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: No, those are different causes: the first is not due to the brs but rather to the newlines in the section parameter (i.e. after the brs). So that section name could be run together into one line (still with the brs) and it'd fix the nesting (might not be the best way to do it though). The second problem I've fixed I think with this change. Sam Wilson 00:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks -- and sorry, I realized they were separate cases, was just grouping my questions together. These both help, and probably give me enough info to jump in and start fixing some stuff. Thanks! -Pete (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@Samwilson: For the "br" and line return in section, if we concatenate to a line, we resolve the linter error, and can look at the general use at a point in time (suggest that as our solution). Though it is can be difficult to know that it is the solution without opening and drilling down. [Namespace solutions would be helpful here, though not available with the current special tools.] As we know some of the main namespace works, might be able to prefixindex through those, though the "Nicene" works are bleeding ugly.

We do not need to fuss the less than perfect BR semantics of the closing forward slash, browsers manage that resolution without mediawiki fussing it.

With regard to the time-consuming stuff, bot fixing things at this time is crap as 1) it doesn't seem you cannot easily pull a simple list of pages to work upon (AND definitely not for AutoWikiBrowser); 2a) our size div and span templates do have a different line-height, and 2b) they work differently where they cross a page, and the irregular use of /s /e template pairs is uncertain without looking at the scan (which is not bot'able). — billinghurst sDrewth 03:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

In pywikibot there is support for -linter option for pagegenerators. You can select also subcategories, and combine it with other existing filtering methods.— Mpaa (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Does it work in the Page namespace, where we may have only the start or the end tags? Where such tags cross into the header or footer? Will is recognize problems in the Main namespace for transcluded works, or only Page by Page? --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
The option allows selection/creation of lists of pages belonging to the different lint-error categories. Pages can be further filtered (e.g. by ns, prefixindex, regex on title etc.). The logic to fix page content needs to be coded aside, as it is usually done with other tasks. replace.py and possibility for regexex fixes is a good tool. I have cleaned quite a lot of pages with it.— Mpaa (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
But that doesn't answer my question. Can it, for example, determine whether the opening tags (set by template) on one Page, are closed in the correct reverse sequence on another Page, when the formatting straddles two or more Pages? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Mpaa is only talking about page generators, not the ability to check and resolve. General info for the api is mw:API:Query#Generators and the implementation through pywikibot is mw:Manual:Pywikibot/Page Generators. What your asking is above and beyond the power of the generator, it relates to the content. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Fascinating, and kind of depressing to hear that automated solutions won't work so well! I just cleared out all the font-color ones in user space (a few dozen), and it seems that one might be regex and AWB-able...no? I'd be happy to give it a shot if nobody else has, unless there's some deal breaker I'm not thinking of. (I do see that getting an input list into AWB will be a challenge, and maybe just impossible. But I'll ponder it a bit.) -Pete (talk) 03:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't fuss anything in user namespace, if its presentation is borked, who cares. The content areas are where we should be fixing things where the guests come to read, so primarily page and main nss. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Category for our dear friend Anon?[edit]

What's the difference between Category:Works by unknown authors and Category:Anonymous texts? —Sam Wilson 06:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The former is filled by use of {{anon}} and is subcategory to the second, which is category filled by another means through the header template. So the difference is due to the mechanisms. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-20[edit]

22:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

LIFE magazine[edit]

I've done a check of periodical renewals, and it seems like Time forgot to renew vols. 16 and 17 (1944) in 1972. In 1971 they renewed v. 15, in 1973 they renewed v. 18. These issues can be read in full on Google Books without limitation or any download.

-Einstein95 (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Volume 16 to Volume 18 Number 13 are in public domain as their copyright was not renewed. Copyright was renewed from No. 14 of Vol 18 (1). In IA: Vol 16 No. 17, Vol 16 No. 23. Hrishikes (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Mark proofread gadget[edit]

Hi all. I've an idea to modify the mark-proofread gadget to make it faster: MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-mark-proofread.js#Query_more_than_one_page_at_a_time. (Spamming here because I don't think that page will be on everyone's watchlist.) Sam Wilson 06:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow...night-and-day difference on pages I see every day. Great work! -Pete (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Nice! Gets it done in a blink of an eye now. Jpez (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

How can we make it easier for Wikimedia contributors to understand Wikidata?[edit]

Noun Project author icon 1642368 cc.svg

Dear all

Over the past year or so I've been working quite a lot on Wikidata documentation and have been thinking more about the needs of different kinds of user. I feel that currently Wikidata can be difficult to understand (what it does, how to contribute, what issues there are and what is being done to address them etc) even for experienced Wikimedia project contributors. To help address this I've started an RFC to try and collate this information together. It would be really helpful if you could share your thoughts, especially if you find Wikidata hard to understand or confusing, you can just share your thoughts on the talk page and we will synthesize them into the main document.

Wikidata:Requests for comment/Improving Wikidata documentation for different types of user

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Lint fsx[edit]

Hi. There are about 300 pages in Page ns that have issues with {{fsx}}, due to multi-paragraph or and fsx-sized text across pages. Suggestions on alternative templates? Or new ones, if no available?— Mpaa (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

{{fsx/s}} {{fsex/e}} seems to be the approach used in other circumstances. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
{{fsx}} is span-based and so are the existing {{Font-size-x/s}}/{{Font-size-x/s}}. We need an equivalent div-based template, I guess.— Mpaa (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
One change to {{Font-size-x/s}} and {{Font-size-x/s}} implemented a temporary fix. I'll update the single use as well.. Please check my coding..ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
The change is to add an element parameter to switch the span for some other element, div works to suppress the lint concerns, P doesn't. However it's still my view this is only a temporary fix until someone can pin down a Mediawiki developer to properly re-do Proofread page so we don't have to play hunt the 'bodge' on things like this. If anything the parser migration has exposed a weakness in that there's no easy way without documentation to tell if a template is span based or block based, having that as something the parser could warn about... (cough cough cough etc. XD)...ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I leave it to others to comment on the implementation, templates are not my playground. IMHO we should not deviate from the convention inline vs. block templates and the fact that we need to specify a parameter such as element=div is definitely not user-friendly or understandable by newcomers.— Mpaa (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
If the font-size percentage is near enough, we could switch to {{fine block}} or {{smaller block}} --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I would endorse this suggestion. In standard body text, sticking in percentage templates is just more levels of confusion to proofreaders. There is enough issues with span/div templates so please let us remove complexity wherever we can. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

LintHint script is incompatible with constructions that are widely used in Page: namespace on English Wikisource.[edit]

I was having problems with w:User:PerfektesChaos/js/lintHint not analysing the 'additional' fields when on the Edit form.

So I left a note for the developer: w:de:Benutzer_Diskussion:PerfektesChaos#LIntHint..._Option_to_check_entire_source_code,_from_EDIT_form...

The basic response seems to be that the relevant templates should be coded to be self contained in the header/body/footer respectively. This has NOT been the way things have been done on English Wikisource for some time with respect to the use case mentioned, and the use of {{{template/s}}{{template/e}} pairs has been recommended as standard usage for formatting that's split over pages.

As the original maintainer of the script seems unwilling to make it more compatible are there any developers or coders here that would be able to do so? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Page number corrections in {{dotted TOC line}} template.[edit]

The {{dotted TOC line}}, when used with a djvupage argument, apparently displays page numbers as links (to the djvu page) in the Index and Page namespaces, but not in the Main namespace, which makes sense. However, I'd like to "correct" a misprinted page number with {{SIC}}, so I can't use a plain number as djvupage. I can put it in pagetext, but then it's not linked in Index, and if I write it as a link, it is linked in Main. Is there some way to have the corrected page number behave just the same as the normal ones? I have the impression I have discussed this already some time ago, but I can't find it. An example: Page:Tales from the Arabic, Vol 2.djvu/15, transcluded in Tales from the Arabic/Volume 2 (collapsed), page 193 is wrong. Jellby (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The "djvupage" element is an embedded {{DJVU page link}} which you can play with to achieve the desired effect. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. {{DJVU page link}} doesn't help, because it expects a number, and not a {{SIC}} template, but {{DJVU page link 2}} allows arbitrary text and an explicit target for the link (instead of just an offset). As a side question, is there a similar template that allows linking to some other file (for multi-volume works)? ETA: Nevermind, I found {{double link}} which I think is what I actually want. Jellby (talk) 07:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Referencing a specific footnote from another work/volume[edit]

I'd like to add a hyperlink to a specific footnote in Main namespace. I can do it with [title#cite_note-xx], but xx is the footnote/endnote number, which might change (if some section with footnotes is added/removed from the document, for instance). Even if the footnote was given a name with <ref name="foo">, the link still includes the number as "cite_note-foo-xx". Is there some way to have a fixed reference for a footnote, without using {{Anchor}} (which I presume would not result in the same highlighting as when linking to a footnote)? Jellby (talk) 08:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jellby: I can never remember this coming up in discussion. Best I can suggest is to look through mw:Extension:Cite to see if there is any mention. Best I can recommend is to list to the "subpage#pagenum" and let them find the ref. Getting out of dynamic numbering out of refs isn't something that I think that I would favour. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorted through gadgets[edit]

I have just moved out all bar one of the existing gadgets out of development into other sections (certainly out of development). I reckon that someone can come about with a better set of criteria, so feel happy to take suggestions at MediaWiki talk:Gadgets-definition. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-21[edit]

17:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Puzzled - No page numbers on Lengths and Levels To Bradshaw's Maps/Canals and Railways in the Northern Map ?[edit]

It's using a standard pages tag. Suggestions? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Also - Lengths and Levels To Bradshaw's Maps/From Actual Survey (1832) Page number display at side is messed up for some reason. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Page numbers never display correctly when a table spans several pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah... Another long standing issue that remains unresolved. :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)